Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32026336›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2021

Laparoscopic Colectomy vs Laparoscopic CME: a Retrospective Study of Two Hospitals with Comparable Laparoscopic Experience.

Juha Ka Rinne, Anu Ehrlich, Jaana Ward, Ville Väyrynen, Mikael Laine, Ilmo H Kellokumpu, Matti Kairaluoma, Marja K Hyöty, Jyrki Ao Kössi

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Juha Ka RinnePäijät-Häme Central Hospital, Keskussairaalankatu 7, 15850, Lahti, Finland. juha.rinne@phsotey.fi.ORCID 0000-0001-6678-8900
Anu EhrlichDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, Jorvi Hospital, Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa, Turuntie 150, PL 800, 00029 HUS, Espoo, Finland.
Jaana WardPäijät-Häme Central Hospital, Keskussairaalankatu 7, 15850, Lahti, Finland.
Ville VäyrynenDepartment of Gastrointerstinal Surgery, Central Hospital of Central Finland, Keskussairaalantie 19, 40620, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Mikael LaineDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, Porvoo Hospital, Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa, Porvoo, Finland.
Ilmo H KellokumpuDepartment of Gastrointerstinal Surgery, Central Hospital of Central Finland, Keskussairaalantie 19, 40620, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Matti KairaluomaDepartment of Gastrointerstinal Surgery, Central Hospital of Central Finland, Keskussairaalantie 19, 40620, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Marja K HyötyDepartment of Gastroenterology, Tampere University Hospital, Teiskontie 35, 33520, Tampere, Finland.
Jyrki Ao KössiPäijät-Häme Central Hospital, Keskussairaalankatu 7, 15850, Lahti, Finland.
Central Finland Health Care District · FIPäijät-Hämeen Keskussairaala · FIHospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa · FIJorvi Hospital · FITampere University · FITampere University Hospital · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare laparoscopic non-CME colectomy with laparoscopic CME colectomy in two hospitals with similar experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

methodsData was collected retrospectively from Päijät-Häme Central Hospital (PHCH, NCME group) and Central Finland Central Hospital (CFCH, CME group) records. Elective laparoscopic resections performed during 2007-2016 for UICC stage I-III adenocarcinoma were included to assess differences in short-term outcome and survival.

resultsThere were 340 patients in the NCME group and 325 patients in the CME group. CME delivered longer specimens (p < 0.001), wider resection margins (p < 0.001), and more lymph nodes (p < 0.001) but did not result in better 5-year overall or cancer-specific survival (NCME 77.9% vs CME 72.9%, p = 0.528, NCME 93.2% vs CME 88.9%, p = 0.132, respectively). Thirty-day morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay were similar between the groups. Conversion to open surgery was associated with decreased survival. DISCUSSION: Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is reported to improve survival. Most previous studies have compared open CME with open non-CME (NCME) or open CME with laparoscopic CME. NCME populations have been historical or heterogeneous, potentially causing bias in the interpretation of results. Studies comparing laparoscopic CME with laparoscopic NCME are few and involve only small numbers of patients. In this study, diligently performed laparoscopic non-CME D2 resection delivered disease-free survival results comparable with laparoscopic CME but was not safer.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsLaparoscopyMesocolonColectomyFinlandHospitalsHumansLymph Node ExcisionRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCancerCMEColonLaparoscopicNCME

Identifiers

PMID32026336
PMCPMC7904727
OpenAlexW3005153691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.